From challenges to newly enacted laws on online gaming, and religious conversions, to high-stakes disputes involving, electoral roll revisions, the cases lined up before the court are likely to have far-reaching implications.
Supreme Court in 2026: As the Supreme Court prepares for another consequential year, 2026 is set to witness hearings in a clutch of cases that touch upon India’s constitutional, electoral, economic and social framework.
From challenges to newly enacted laws on online gaming, election commissioner appointments and religious conversions, to high-stakes disputes involving land evictions, electoral roll revisions, judicial accountability and the regulation of stray dogs, the cases lined up before the Supreme Court are likely to have far-reaching legal and political implications.
1) Constitutional challenge to Online Gaming Act
The court is set to hear the constitutional challenge to the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, with the petitioner, Head Digital Works Pvt Ltd, questioning Parliament’s power to impose a complete ban on real-money online games.
The company has challenged multiple sections of the law and asked the court to read safeguards into sections 14, 15 and 16, which deal with investigation and enforcement. It has also sought interim relief, including a stay on the provisions as they apply to games of skill such as rummy and poker, and an order restraining the Union government from taking coercive steps.
2) Land encroachment case
The case pertains to encroachment of around 29 acres of Indian Railways land in three localities namely, Gafoor Basti, Dholak Basti and Indira Nagar. A total of 4,365 alleged encroachments were identified by the administration.
On January 10, 2017, the high court ordered clearance, followed by eviction notices. The Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s eviction order, citing concerns about 50,000 people being evicted overnight.
When likely to be heard: January.
3) Challenge to anti-conversion laws
The court is hearing the stay applications filed in a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of anti-conversion laws passed by Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Haryana, among others.
The NGO, Citizens for Justice and Peace, said that its petition challenging the laws has been pending for a long time, but now there is an urgency as some states are amending them and making them more stringent. The Court has sought the response of states that have enacted anti-conversion legislation to an application seeking a stay on the laws.
The court was informed that the Gujarat High Court had stayed some provisions of the state’s anti-conversion law, while the Madhya Pradesh High Court had stayed one provision of the state’s Act.
When likely to be heard: January.
4) Justice Yashwant Verma
The court is also set to hear the writ petition challenging the legal validity of the committee set up by Lok Sabha Speaker to probe the charges of corruption against Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, following the discovery of unaccounted cash at his official residence during a fire incident in March this year.
In the last hearing, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih issued notice to the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Secretariat on the plea by Justice Varma, who has questioned the Speaker’s decision on the ground that due procedure was not followed.
5) Plea against SIR
The court is also hearing petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the SIR exercise. A batch of petitions challenges the EC’s decision to undertake the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across several states, including Bihar.
The court, while hearing the petitions, had refused to stay the exercise. Post publication of the final voter list for Bihar, the EC had begun the process of revising the rolls in nine more states, including Tamil Nadu and three Union Territories.
When likely to be heard: January.
6) Challenge against sedition law
The constitutional validity of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) has been challenged before the court. The petition contends that the provision “reintroduces the colonial sedition law”.
Section 152 of BNS states that whoever, purposely or knowingly, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or by electronic communication or by use of financial mean, or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite, secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India; or indulges in or commits any such act shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
A bench of ex-CJI B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria has issued notice in the matter while tagging it with a pending matter challenging the provision.
The plea, filed by retired Army officer S G Vombatkere, says that the provision, “in effect, reintroduces the colonial sedition law previously codified as Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, under a new nomenclature.
7) Challenge to Election Commissioners Act
The court is hearing petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which altered the appointment process for Election Commissioners by excluding the Chief Justice of India from the selection committee.
Petitions filed by Dr. Jaya Thakur, Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), and others in January 2024 argue the Act violates the 2023 Anoop Baranwal judgment, which mandated a committee including the Prime Minister, CJI, and Leader of Opposition for appointments.
When likely to be heard: January.
8) Stray dogs
In the stray dogs matter, the court said it will consider objections to the rules framed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) on the handling of stray dogs on January 7 as petitioners raised concerns that stray dogs are likely to be removed from streets without shelters.
The Supreme Court took up the matter suo motu in July this year after media reports highlighted serious attacks, including those that involved fatalities, by stray dogs in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR).
A two-judge bench initially ordered the civic bodies in the area to capture and permanently shelter all stray dogs within eight weeks. This directive faced criticism from animal welfare groups, who described it as “too harsh” and impractical.
In response to the public outcry, the Chief Justice of India assigned the case to a three-judge bench presided over by Justice Vikram Nath. The three-judge bench modified the order on August 22, staying the directive for permanent sheltering and expanded the scope of the matter to include all states and Union Territories.
The apex court also modified its earlier direction barring the release of vaccinated canines from shelters in Delhi-NCR. Terming it “too harsh”, it ordered the dogs to be released after undergoing sterilisation and de-worming procedures.
When likely to be heard: January.
9) ‘Builder-bank nexus’
The court is dealing with a plea regarding allegations of round-tripping of funds, violations of the Companies Act, and siphoning of funds against the promoters of Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited (IHFL), now known as Sammaan Capital Limited.
The Court has asked the CBI Director to decide within one week on forming a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the alleged irregularities with respect to “quid-pro-quo arrangements” in loans given to corporate groups.
While hearing the PIL by the Citizens Whistle Blower Forum, the court had questioned CBI and SEBI for their alleged “reluctance” to probe the allegations against IHFL and asked the agency Director to hold a meeting with the market regulator, SFIO and ED to look into it.
When likely to be heard: January.
10) Waqf amendment
A host of petitioners have challenged the Waqf Amendment Act 2025, arguing that it interfered with the fundamental right of the Muslim community to manage its own religious affairs, guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution.
The court in September passed an interim order staying the operation of several provisions of the law. While refusing to put a blanket stay on the entire law, a Bench comprising former Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih temporarily put on hold provisions that gave district collectors wide-ranging powers over Waqf properties and mandated a five-year period of practising Islam to create a Waqf.
The court also capped the number of non-Muslims who can be appointed to the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards. The order came in response to a batch of nearly 65 petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the new law.